Watergate. Spygate. Troopergate. America’s obsession with suggesting unethical behavior and a cover-up without first hearing the facts lives on with Deflategate.
In case you successfully avoided the American Football Conference’s Championship Game of 2015, pairing the Indianapolis Colts against the New England Patriots, here’s a recap to catch you up to speed: the Colts’ linebacker D’Qwell Jackson intercepted a pass from the Patriots’ beloved quarterback, Tom Brady, and Jackson handed the ball to a Colts equipment manager “as a souvenir.” The equipment manager measured the pressure of the football, noticed it was underinflated, and alerted NFL officials. Officials measured the pressure of the game footballs during halftime (at least most of them, before running out of time), noted which ones were underinflated (this number is debated, but some say as many as 11 of the Patriots’ 12 footballs and none of the Colts’ four footballs), reinflated them, and continued the game.
The Patriots went on to beat the Colts 45 to 7, and then the allegations and investigations went rampant. Someone cited surveillance video that captured a Patriots locker room attendant taking 24 game footballs into a restroom for just under 2 minutes. A Colts safety said he felt like an intercepted football was coated in a tacky substance and “seemed to be spongy or soft when squeezed.”
All of this led to an investigation by the NFL into the under-inflated footballs that began in January and concluded with a 243-page investigative report in May 2015. The report concluded that it was “more probable than not” that Patriots’ equipment personnel deliberately circumvented the rules, that Tom Brady was “generally aware” of the deflation, and the Patriots’ coaching staff was not involved in the situation. With the conclusion of the investigation, the NFL (the entity as a league) decided to suspend Brady for four games of the 2015 football season, which was appealed internally. Roger Goodell, the NFL commissioner, upheld Brady’s suspension.
Then the matter was moved to federal court on account of claims that Goodell failed to give Brady adequate notice, denied Brady an examination of a lead investigator, and denied him equal access to investigative files leading to his suspension. The NFL’s Players Association (NFLPA) backed Brady, claiming Goodell overstepped his authority in punishing Brady by being “generally aware” of an alleged scheme to deflate footballs to gain a perceived competitive advantage. In September 2015, the federal court judge Richard Berman agreed and ruled that Brady would not be suspended from any games.
Most recently, the NFL appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Second Circuit), claiming that NFL commissioner Goodell acted within his scope, and arguing that the NFLPA willingly entered into all agreements with the League giving them the right to mediate such issues. It should come as no surprise that the Second Circuit upheld the league commissioner’s ruling; the courts like to honor the mediation process. The NFL and the NFLPA made a conscious decision to mediate issues, and the Second Circuit ruled that the league commissioner acted within his discretion. After all, the process is in place to help individuals resolve issues outside of court, taking strain off our judicial system.
The Second Circuit clearly defends their analysis and conclusion:
“Our role is not to determine for ourselves whether Brady participated in a scheme to deflate footballs or whether the suspension imposed by the Commissioner should have been for three games or five games or none at all. Nor is it our role to second‐guess the arbitrator’s procedural rulings. Our obligation is limited to determining whether the arbitration proceedings and award met the minimum legal standards established by the Labor Management Relations Act (the “LMRA”). We must simply ensure that the arbitrator was “even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority” and did not “ignore the plain language of the contract.” These standards do not require perfection in arbitration awards. Rather, they dictate that even if an arbitrator makes mistakes of fact or law, we may not disturb an award so long as he acted within the bounds of his bargained‐for authority.”
In a statement, the NFL said:
We are pleased the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled today that the Commissioner properly exercised his authority under the collective bargaining agreement to act in cases involving the integrity of the game. That authority has been recognized by many courts and has been expressly incorporated into every collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and NFLPA for the past 40 years.
And to be expected, the NFLPA rebutted with the following:
The NFLPA is disappointed in the decision by the Second Circuit. We fought Roger Goodell’s suspension of Tom Brady because we know he did not serve as a fair arbitrator and that players’ rights were violated under our collective bargaining agreement.
Our Union will carefully review the decision, consider all of our options and continue to fight for players’ rights and for the integrity of the game.
As it currently stands, the NFLPA (which is to note, not Brady, but on behalf of Brady), can ask the full court of appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court to review the issue on a matter of law, but not a matter of fact. The likelihood of either agreeing to hear an appeal, given both courts’ rosters, is unlikely, but not impossible.